RE: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

I’m also too late for this discussion but just wanted to let you know about my consent. I completely agree with Andreas. I know both CI solutions and Hudson is superior in many areas. To some degree the content of the build (error) messages can be customized in the job configuration “Editable Em

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

+1 for Hudson. Thanks, Ruwan On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 19:00, Hiranya Jayathilaka > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski > wrote: > >> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: > >>> Thanks for

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 19:00, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: >>> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >>> sometimes are completely useless. A

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: >> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >> sometimes are completely useless. Also recently there have been so >> many false negatives reported

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: > Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications > sometimes are completely useless. Also recently there have been so > many false negatives reported on the list. I was hoping that may be > Continuum doesn't suffe

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 04:51, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Andreas Veithen > wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:01, Hiranya Jayathilaka >> wrote: >>> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >>> sometimes are completely useless.

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Andreas Veithen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:01, Hiranya Jayathilaka > wrote: >> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >> sometimes are completely useless. > > Can you give me an example of this? Well most of the recent no

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:01, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: > Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications > sometimes are completely useless. Can you give me an example of this? > Also recently there have been so > many false negatives reported on the list. I was hoping

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications sometimes are completely useless. Also recently there have been so many false negatives reported on the list. I was hoping that may be Continuum doesn't suffer these limitations. Thanks, Hiranya On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:28 A

Re: Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

Personally, I have used both Continuum and Hudson, and I think Hudson is much better than Continuum. BTW, as you can see, there are only a couple of projects left that still use Continuum at Apache. All other projects are using Hudson. At work, we also migrated from Continuum to Hudson several mont

Continuum as the Continuous Integration Solution

Hi Folks, How do you feel about switching to Continuum from Hudson as our CI solution? I've been looking at the build notifications sent by Continuum in the HttpComponents mailing list and they are very clean, easy to comprehend and full of useful details. The Continuum interface/dashboard also lo